What amuses me the most about Hugh Despenser the Younger is that he was in the camp of Edward’s opponents (those who were responsible for executing Gaveston), was disliked by Edward for the most part of his life (they knew each other for ages), always was a hotheaded bully and somehow managed to became so important to the king that he’d stayed by Hugh’s side till the very end. Thank you for pointing out that Gaveston and Despenser were in fact very different. Most of the documentaries, novels or TV seem to view Hugh as Gaveston 2.0.
Many thanks for your comment, you are absolutely right, Despenser and Gaveston were very different, in fact Isabella viewed them both very differently, she absolutely loathed Despenser, so much so she took great pleasure in watching the younger Despenser die in the manner that he did. 😉🙏👍
@@historyslifestories373 yeah, it seems that Isabella didn’t mind Gaveston or Damory, her problem wasn’t that her husband had favorites, her problem was Hugh himself. She said many times that she was afraid of him, and considering Hugh used to go around threatening people we can assume that he threatened Isabella as well. The man was completely unhinged.
It's quite telling that the "she wolf" queens (wives of Edward 2 and Henry 6) were simply strong wives of very weak kings. They used the same tricks to keep order that kings and their families had done for centuries, but they were maligned for it. One could argue that they helped maintain stability when their husbands were not doing their jobs.
It's the misogyny and prejudice that females always get dealt with in history. Women like Cleopatra VI and Isabella of Aquitaine who were exceptional rulers gifted with statemanship, political savvy and high intelligence were given a bad press by male historians and male contemporaries. I think it's jealousy and envy that these incredible women inspired and fear of their powers.
Or one could much more easily argue that she was just homophobic and conspired with her lover to have her husband and his lover murdered. Sounds more like a hateful hypocrite than a strong women. Let's not whitewash what she did to create a false feminist icon, when history is full of them on its own. Frankly 'Shewolf' is pretty polite considering she was committing high treason. Try Eleanor of Aquitaine next time. She's a real badass who supported the rule of her gay son (Richard I)0
I like the fact that the Narrator has used real castles and other landscapes thar give this video a genuine degree of authenticity and interesting narrative. Well done!
Many thanks, I do like to travel to some of the places that are central to the video (gives me a good excuse anyway 😉). It’s incredible how many castles are actually still intact in Britain, Wales has over 300. 👍🙏
@historyslifestories373 I find that most interesting to know that so many castles still are in use in Great Britain. I presume many would be run by the National Trust and of course by families that may have inherited the castle. Must be very expensive to maintain. The castle of Caerphilly just gobsmacked me. The location is ingenious. To know that you actually visit the castles and the locations is fascinating. You really do tremendous research. I'm a New Zealander and never traveled overseas- yet. We don't have architectures that span hundreds of years so it's awe inspiring to see your videos. Thank you so very much.
@@historyslifestories373sorry to be a pedantic but your Welsh pronunciation could do with some coaching. It's not CARE philly. Try rhyming the Cae with tie.
There were a few other things that involved Gaveston, as well. First, Edward left Gaveston in charge while he was away getting married. Upon his return he rushed off the ship to embrace Gaviston leaving his new bride to step onto the shore of her new home alone. Gaveston was in charge of the coronation dinner and it was so poorly organized that it took hours for the food to be served and by then it was already rotting. The displaying of the royal crest combined with Gaveston rather than his new bride’s was foolish as well as insulting. The book “Daughters of Chivalry” is a great resource that talks about Edward I daughters as well as Edward II’s problems. For instance, he wasn’t just thrown out of the room by his father, he had been expelled from court and it took letters from at least one sister to gain him favor by his father again. He never learned his lesson where Gaveston was concerned and I’m surprised he lived as long as he did as a result.
I'm a history buff myself, and I've been studying the history of England during the middle ages and the rennisance. This info is awesome! Keep it up! New subscriber here! ❤
It’s interesting that Robert the Bruce was “running amok” in lower Scotland. How can you “run amok” when taking back lands that belonged to you in the first place? England had no right to take any parts of Scotland EVER. I say that as a descendant of both sides.
I see the point you are making and completely agree with you, but England did invade, many times. They must have been awful times to live through. I used the phrase‘running amok’ simply because it was on English held territory in Scotland at that particular time. I am certainly not saying it was right for the English to have been there, just a historical fact that they were.
His father, Edward I was a powerful leader. His constant battles against Scotland and Ireland was fierce. Unfortunately his son , Edward 2nd was not of the same caliber. Did he have sexual relations with Piers Gaveston or was it propaganda to use against Edward? His reign was unstable and full of the nobles rebelling. He got a rough deal but his handling of political situations were disastrous. Isabella was shrewd and a most determined Queen. Edward should of given her deference and treat her better. She was revenge full and it's understandable.
I think that when Gavenston wore the Queen’s dresses and jewelry publicly answers both the question of the King’s relationship and why Queen Isabella was furious with him. After Gavenston was murdered, the King switched to the DeSpencers.
@aliceputt3133 I didn't know that Pires Gaverston donned female clothes. It's never been remarked upon by historians or contemporary writers. I'm surprised. However, if true or not, I think Edward should of been more circumspect in his manner. It seems Gaverston enjoyed his elevation to favourite and became vain and arrogant and the nobles were incensed.
Except for the part where she tried to keep her son Edward III from ascending to the throne when he was of age. Instead, she plotted with her lover Robert Mortimer to put one of their children on the throne in Edward's stead. She was lucky to only be shut up in a convent for her crimes.
Pretty decent overview. I think my only gripe is the long stretches of silence when there are written explanations onscreen. I don't watch the whole time because I put videos on to do other things, so I'll be looking away and suddenly everything goes silent.
She certainly wasn't the sweet, timid, and innocent-like damsel that Mel Gibson made her out to be in Brave Heart, but that's what people get when they only get their history lessons from Hollywood.
Ha ha, I couldn’t have put it better myself. I watched a film on Mary Queen of Scots the other day and they managed to contrive a meeting between her and Elizabeth - why on earth do they do that?
It's telling that the "she wolf" was mocked by her husband and treated with scorn while his homosexual infatuations were elevated. The "she wolf" bore insults and mockery in silent humility until the moment came to take vengence for her husbands many insults
This is one of the better documentaries I've seen on the topic. However, a few important things are missing or glossed over in it. 1) Isabella did not hate Edward II. There is plenty of evidence that she was very close with Edward II, even as he was simultaneously enamored with Gaveston. As you say, she got along well with Gaveston in spite of their little love triangle. They understood eachother and certainly there was true mutual affection between Isabella and Edward. The dynamics changed when Despenser came in between them and for the most part denied Isabella access to her husband. Isabella would hate Despenser with a passion for the rest of her life, but this hate did not extend to her husband. Even as Edward II was imprisoned at Berkeley Castle, she would write him affectionate letters, sending him gifts, food, small luxuries and asking about his health. There was no political reason for doing this, only love could explain this. She wanted to see him, but was denied these requests by Roger Mortimer, who had everything to lose if they would be reconciled. Isabella, more than anyone else, cared about Edward II. She knew him better than anyone and understood his vices and virtues and accepted him for who he was, with all his flaws. It's very sad that their relationship is so deeply misrepresented still today. 2) Edward II was (most likely) not murdered. The chroniclers who recorded these events were no more informed about what really happened than the average man on the street. Many people who would have been very well informed about the true state of affairs were certain that he was alive well after he was rumoured to have died. There is some evidence that he was later att Corfe Castle, and from there moved on to Ireland and thence to the continent, finally ending up in a peaceful Italian convent. As crazy as this does sound it is the most likely scenario considering all the actual facts we are aware of. I won't get into it too deeply, but the Fieschi letter is of great significance, as is the fact the a man claiming to be the father of Edward III met with him in Koblenz, Germany years after. In those days, royal impersonators would regularly get executed, but this time... the man was allowed to live and was not persecuted in any way. He didn't even ask for anything, which is telling. Why, then, would Edward II not have tried to regain the throne, had he remained alive? Because of his personality. Kingship was forced upon him, and he had no interest in government. He enjoyed the company of lowborn people. He must have been painfully aware that his reign had been a disaster. He was pious and had always found the company of priests, prelates and monks very pleasant. In his teens, he faced criticism for staying much longer in their company than he would have needed to. He was always criticized for ignoring matters of state, always preferring to do hard work with his own hands. Now he was finally at peace, enjoying a blissful existence in a scenic Italian convent in a mountainous setting. He was among like minded people, an equal to them, allowed to fill his days with physical labour and piety, activities which had always given him joy. Why would he have wanted to return to the hellish existence he endured as a king? This is what I imagine he told his son in Germany, and was thus allowed by all to continue his peaceful existence. He was officially declared dead, but allowed to stay alive far away from England and its politics. It was a win-win situation for everyone.
Thanks very much @boogiesmall5181, a rather excellent and thought provoking comment, I do take your point on Isabella’s feelings for Edward, she was definitely fully supportive of her husband when Gaveston was alive, however, the arrival of the Despenser’s threw a huge spanner in the works. Edwards death may well be solely down to Mortimer, personally I would love to know the full in’s and out’s. I am indeed aware of the rumours surrounding Edward’s survival and living out the rest of his life in Germany (I think???), but I chose on balance not to include it in the script - looking back I think this was a mistake and should have given it some time. If Edward did escape I would love to know who is in his tomb 👍. Thanks again for a really interesting comment 😉🙏👍
@@historyslifestories373 Thank you for your response! I believe he became a hermit in Italy, as crazy as it sounds put that bluntly. It does make a lot of sense however, everything considered. I'm no expert in the field, but I try to binge of books on medieval England. These are of course only theories, but the actual evidence we have seems to point to this conclusion and interpreting the letters and events any differently does have some flaws which makes this scenario by far the most likely at the end of the day. If you're up to the task and feel like it, I would strongly recommend reading Kathryn Warners books on Edward II (the biggest authority there is on him) as well as Ian Mortimers. Once you've done that... make an Internet breaking video on their compelling discoveries. So far, all this is only available in written format, and I believe this would be extremely interesting for many people who can't find the time to go through all the written sources! 🤩 This is riveting stuff. It really is possible to feel you get to know who these people were, what made them tick, what drove them, what they feared, what caused them to react the way they did to events. These are more than hollow words. Human nature never changes. Consider this task, at least 🙂
That’s great PinkLady, glad you liked it, please let me know if there is any event or person you would like me to cover? I am always after new ideas 👍🙏
Hi @sisterhoney61, many thanks for your kind words, I have done a video on Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine obviously featured quite prominently, but I agree a video purely dedicated to her is definitely something to consider, thanks again 👍🙏
What an excellent video! I’m glad that I just discovered this channel this morning. Edward II is exhibit A for the reason why hereditary monarchies are such a bad idea. Edwards I and III were excellent rulers (for their time), but Edward II was an utter disaster. Unfortunately, the people had no way of getting rid of him and replacing him with someone much more capable and competent until the end of his reign and, as a result, the entire country suffered. The idea that somehow one’s exalted bloodline is proof enough that they will be a just and equitable ruler or leader is absolute nonsense.
Many thanks Monica, glad you enjoyed it, completely agree with your thoughts on the problems with hereditary monarchies. It’s kind of strange that when you had what was thought to be a great monarch such as Henry V they were invariably succeeded by a bad one - Henry VI. 👍🙏
Well they did “get rid of him”, didn’t they? The problem was that there was no mechanism for a *peaceful* replacement , or for a separation of powers. With those things, a hereditary monarchy is not a problem…. as the number of stable , politically free modern monarchies demonstrate.
I’d add that hereditary monarchy was a mechanism whereby war was avoided. Otherwise, the death of every monarch held a very high probability that civil war would ensue between different candidates. The reality of the day was that the land was divided between powerful warlords. A King had to be more than “nice”, he had to be able to enforce the peace between those warlords, as well as protect the kingdom from foreign invaders. Ironically, the Parliamentary powers and the increasing power of the lesser nobility, the gentry and the commons, were the results of weak Kings needing to compromise. The process by which the democratic institutions arose in England took centuries and much bloodshed. It’s a fascinating study in its own right.
We're supposed to pretend that Edward's homosexuality had nothing to do with the lack of respect that his medieval peers and subjects had for him? Being a sodomite was pretty much the worst thing one could have been. They hated him for it.
THere were other kings who were also homosexual, but because they were fair in their dealings and good rulers, no one really cared what they did in their bedchambers. THe primary function of the king was to rule (and then to have an heir, of course), if he was competent at that, he could have had sex with goats. People wouldn't have minded. THe church might have minded, but what could they do? As for the castration of Despenser... it was purely Isabella's revenge - it was all her.
Makes me wonder how things would have worked out if the homosexuality of these 2 had been accepted. One thing they hated most about Gaveston was that he was far stronger, a better fighter and tremendously more dominant in personality than all other men at court.
Nothing would have changed. It was not the king's proclivities that was the problem. THere were a lot of rulers who were gay but because they could rule, no one really minded what they did in their bedchambers. Edward II, however, was weak, incompetent and also let his favorites have too much control over everything. If he were a good ruler, people wouldn't have minded if instead of Gaveston it was a sheep or a goat.
@@Lina-lq7jm "People wouldn't have minded". Which people? "The people" didn't matter at all, had no say. Only the other nobles counted and they saw Edward's main weakness as his homosexuality. James I was gay also, but he did a better job of hiding it. Richard II was more like Edward II and look what happened to him. Some say William Rufus was gay. He was murdered.
Great documentory, well thought out and well layed out. Appreciate what your doing for us, also good that you leave comments on as those that know throw in there twopenny worth which adds to the tapestry, rather peeps did'nt drop in "Fun Fact" though, Despenser-Spenser, guess i'd better go jump down that rabbit whole and find out....
OH, THAT BABY IS SO CUTE!! I couldn't pay attention to anything, after! That must be the narrator's kid; good for you if so, though I'm sure Ed III was just as precocious at that age! "Yes, you're a cute, little bloodthirsty monarch, aren't you!?" 🥰🥰
One should not forget that from 1302 till about 1312 the French King saw his power and influence heavily weakened after losing 1200 knights and his entire army being massacred at the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302 after picking a fight with the Flemish. So marrying off his daughter to the King of England was probably a way to stop the English from taking advantage of his weakened position and invading France. PS : Well... we picked a fight with them really during the Brugse Metten in Bruges when we killed the entire French garisson but the end result is the same.
Not sure of the link between this two events, since the marriage took place in 1308, and since Philip IV re-imposed his authority over Flanders in 1304 in the battles of Zierikzee and Mons-en-Pévèle.
@@heliedecastanet1882 it was his lack of knights. He reinforced his authority with foot soldiers as the French nobility had been decimated during their fateful charge at Kortrijk. You don't "rebuild' so to speak 1200 knights in 6 years. Fighting the Flemish with foot soldiers was doable, they would have won in 1302 if the nobels hadn't insisted on charging. Fighting a British Knight led army however would have been a much different affair. He left Flanders semi autonomous and only wanted to collect taxes having seen that Flanders was the richest area of Europe if you let them go about bussines without interference.
@@Erulin68 The point is (and I do apologize because I have not been very clear) there is no record of any intention from Edward I of invading France, since the failure of his campaign and the defeat of his allies that led to the treaty of Montreuil-sur-Mer in 1299 and his marriage with Marguerite de France. Where did you get the information that another invasion was planned ?
@@heliedecastanet1882 The fact the English send troops to aid the Flemish. Due to bad weather they were however unable to land their forces. We have the records in the town archives here in Bruges. It's part of our history lessons from a very early age as it's our history. Are we sure ? Of course not that's why I used the word 'probably' But the mere fact of the English sending troops over might point to them having plans in that direction.
@@Erulin68 I didn't know English sent troops in Flanders between 1299 and 1307. I didn't see it written anywhere. Thanks for the information then. Have a good evening !
It is surmised that they left Caerphilly Castle to attempt to flee to Lundy then Ireland to raise an army but a lack of support from the Abbotts of Neath and Margam and the lords of Swansea coupled with horrendous storms that made seafaring impossible put a stop to their plan.
That was the reason chroniclers came up with but that was decades after Edwards death, I did say that the poker story was fiction and that the most likely reason for his demise was that he was smothered. The poker story suited certain writers narrative at the time.
I agree! The internet has made people 100% more stupid, gullible and lazy. Please do not add to the collective lowering of global IQ. It is already in single digits.
A curse to his father's legacy and a boon to the Scots and French. Robert Bruce carried the war right back into England because of this man's incompetence, and knew from his informants that Edward and Piers were too close for comfort. Ah well...
The armour and clothing shown here dates from well over a century later. Full plate armour wasn't even a thing from around his lifespan. Hidden iron vertical plate strips under the surcoat had an appearance though, and knee and elbow plates were also quite common. Most of the clothing dates from the War of the Roses period in the 15th century. War of the Roses recreationists are much more popular than the earlier 13th and 14th centuries so it's somewhat understandable they get used for documentaries like this.
You are quite right, it is difficult to say the least to obtain accurate battle footage for the correct era, the footage I used was the closest I could find, where ever you look it is either plated or vikings.
@@historyslifestories373 It is amazing that same family have lived there nearly 900 years. I am almost jealous to them. Great video and greetings from Finland 🇫🇮💙.
Something else going on in this time period was King Philip persecuting the Knights Templar. King Edward 2 refused to allow this in his kingdom. I think later, but not at first and King Philip was a pretty serious monarch to stand up to.
Hi Carol, many thanks for that, and what a great suggestion, definitely one I will take on board. There are so many characters that are on the periphery of the monarchs that are in fact just as (and in some cases more) interesting 😊👍🙏
@@historyslifestories373I have watched the video twice and enjoyed it very much. Very well researched, presented and accurate. Edward II was not flawless, for sure, but being a fourth son he was not supposed to become king and, most importantly, was not cut out to rule England at that particular time, unfortunately. He also got very bad press! Richard II is my "second best" so yes, sir, a video on him would be great. Thanks for your great job!
@SuperClappy1984 That is one thing NOONE can take from Richard III and is also why for a long while I was a Ricardian; he was always a fierce and brave warrior, and he was to his very end. He suffered his death with valor and bravery, all while having recently suffered the worse losses a man can suffer (his only son and child then his longtime love and wife.) It wasn't a needless fight like with some Scotish kings who needlessly died in battles they didn't need to fight, but a defense of his throne and kingdom. His loss doesn't make it any less impressive, because by all reports he fought to his last breath and was a hard man to kill. Regardless of my other thoughts on his reign, he has my respect for this particular part of it.
These historical events do indeed describe what would happened to the ruling class of the day…those who transgressed met a very gruesome end..the executions were brutal..no wonder the fear of knowing what their fate was would give rise to much anxiety.
Absolutely, in many cases it just wasn’t enough to simply put someone to death, making them suffer both mentally and physically was the order of the day 👍
Around 6 000 000 £, but the costs of life were very different, if you consider that the price for the rent of a nice house was £1/month. So, 200 000 is HUGE 🙂 It would more something like 200 000 000 £.
I hate that the writers here have chosen to call Isabella a 'she-wolf', even going so far as to use it for a click-bait title. The 'she-wolf' monicker was not one used in the lifetime; in fact, after several months being buried under piles of chronicles in a undergrad study, I emerged having found the earliest use of the term towards her being in Edmund Spenser's play about Edward II. After that, a flurry a seriously anti-feminist 17th and 18thh century scholars used the name as a shorthand for both Isabella of France and Margaret of Anjou. To continue to use the title is anti-feminist and sloppy history to boot. Do we really want to continue to promulgate such vilification?
Calling her a she-wolf is pretty mild considering that she was an adulterous whore who killed a rightful king. Edward might have been weak as a ruler, but he was rightful ruler. She, on the other hand, had no claim to the throne herself. And the fact that her son killed her lover the moment he was old enough, and banished her, proves that she wasn't in the right.
there is only one track of music, to accompany the life of queen isabella the she wolf, its bad romance by lady gaga.. edward had a complicated life, and was certainly bisex.. Æthelred the Unready, the poorly adivsed and totally incomptent king of the english, probably was the very first to be deposed in 1013, but was later restored briefly... as for edward II, his tragic love life and ambitious- greedy favourites... eventually led to his downfall... however it is not entirely a english only story..., or even of events takin place in england... scotland was united under king robert I the bruce... and the defeat of england, must have come as almighty shock..., this went much of the way in damaging his repuation across europe... and prestige of BRUCE DYNASTY , over that of the plantagenets... in wales the norman marcher lord... ROGER MORTIMER, 1st earl of march, was a grandson to LLEWELLYN THE GREAT, king of gwynedd and prince of the welsh..., he must have viewed himself as equal to any other feudal baron, and a grandson of a prince..., later he was the favourite and lover of queen isabella..., they had simmilar motives & passions..., in detesting both the king & the despencers...., briefly they would co rule as regents for edward III.. earlier the DE CLARES, were major landowners and nobility closely connected to the crown...., EDWARD I nieces and their lands were then carved up by the hated and ambitious DESPENCERS..... the welsh noble.. LLEWELLYN BREN in 1316 was a former steward to the estates of the DE CLARES... his REBELLION... & later savage execution, almost placed much of wales into second open rebellion against the despencers & the king..., orginally *edward was known as edward of caernarvon castle*, he may have believed that wales or the welsh marches was a safe place to be , or on the lands of his favourite & lover.... later the king was captured in llantrisant castle... and then eventually taken to berkley castle... the savage tale or propaganda, maybe a MORITMER DYNASTY invention, as both the church, queen benefited from depostition.. @ graham loveluck edwards... EDWARD II and his norman -welsh marcher favourites estates, romance & rebellion..
THAT NEVER HAPPENED. Please read actual history instead of believing movies. Next, yoube telling us about how Elizabeth I and Mary of Scots met in real life. Grrr. The gullible acceptance of fictitious content as historical fact drives me nuts. The real history is far more interesting.
What amuses me the most about Hugh Despenser the Younger is that he was in the camp of Edward’s opponents (those who were responsible for executing Gaveston), was disliked by Edward for the most part of his life (they knew each other for ages), always was a hotheaded bully and somehow managed to became so important to the king that he’d stayed by Hugh’s side till the very end.
Thank you for pointing out that Gaveston and Despenser were in fact very different. Most of the documentaries, novels or TV seem to view Hugh as Gaveston 2.0.
Many thanks for your comment, you are absolutely right, Despenser and Gaveston were very different, in fact Isabella viewed them both very differently, she absolutely loathed Despenser, so much so she took great pleasure in watching the younger Despenser die in the manner that he did. 😉🙏👍
@@historyslifestories373 yeah, it seems that Isabella didn’t mind Gaveston or Damory, her problem wasn’t that her husband had favorites, her problem was Hugh himself. She said many times that she was afraid of him, and considering Hugh used to go around threatening people we can assume that he threatened Isabella as well. The man was completely unhinged.
It's quite telling that the "she wolf" queens (wives of Edward 2 and Henry 6) were simply strong wives of very weak kings. They used the same tricks to keep order that kings and their families had done for centuries, but they were maligned for it. One could argue that they helped maintain stability when their husbands were not doing their jobs.
You are quite right Cat Lady, the wife of Henry VI would be a good one to do I think, thanks for the comment.
It's the misogyny and prejudice that females always get dealt with in history. Women like Cleopatra VI and Isabella of Aquitaine who were exceptional rulers gifted with statemanship, political savvy and high intelligence were given a bad press by male historians and male contemporaries. I think it's jealousy and envy that these incredible women inspired and fear of their powers.
Matilda and Eleanor also come to mind. Though Henry II wasn’t a weak ruler like the others.
Or one could much more easily argue that she was just homophobic and conspired with her lover to have her husband and his lover murdered. Sounds more like a hateful hypocrite than a strong women.
Let's not whitewash what she did to create a false feminist icon, when history is full of them on its own.
Frankly 'Shewolf' is pretty polite considering she was committing high treason.
Try Eleanor of Aquitaine next time. She's a real badass who supported the rule of her gay son (Richard I)0
They had to step up because their husbands weren't doing it
I like the fact that the Narrator has used real castles and other landscapes thar give this video a genuine degree of authenticity and interesting narrative. Well done!
Many thanks, I do like to travel to some of the places that are central to the video (gives me a good excuse anyway 😉). It’s incredible how many castles are actually still intact in Britain, Wales has over 300. 👍🙏
@historyslifestories373 I find that most interesting to know that so many castles still are in use in Great Britain. I presume many would be run by the National Trust and of course by families that may have inherited the castle. Must be very expensive to maintain. The castle of Caerphilly just gobsmacked me. The location is ingenious. To know that you actually visit the castles and the locations is fascinating. You really do tremendous research. I'm a New Zealander and never traveled overseas- yet. We don't have architectures that span hundreds of years so it's awe inspiring to see your videos. Thank you so very much.
Yes. Fascinating and very well done. Thank you.
💯
@@historyslifestories373sorry to be a pedantic but your Welsh pronunciation could do with some coaching. It's not CARE philly. Try rhyming the Cae with tie.
Fun Fact: the Despensers were the ancestors of the Spencer family of which Princess Diana was a part.
Many thanks Mike, very interesting point 🙏👍
I never found any link between the Despenser family and sir John Spenser (1455-1522) who started the Spencer family.
Absolutely NOT true.
This was one of the best Plantagenet documentaries. The text, the visuals, the intonation were all first class. Looking forward to more ! Thank you
Yes, this channel is very good! The narration and the touch upon the subject's events are mostly unmatched.
Thanks very much for your kind words, hope you both like the next one 🙏👍
😅 23:48 23:48
There were a few other things that involved Gaveston, as well. First, Edward left Gaveston in charge while he was away getting married. Upon his return he rushed off the ship to embrace Gaviston leaving his new bride to step onto the shore of her new home alone. Gaveston was in charge of the coronation dinner and it was so poorly organized that it took hours for the food to be served and by then it was already rotting. The displaying of the royal crest combined with Gaveston rather than his new bride’s was foolish as well as insulting. The book “Daughters of Chivalry” is a great resource that talks about Edward I daughters as well as Edward II’s problems. For instance, he wasn’t just thrown out of the room by his father, he had been expelled from court and it took letters from at least one sister to gain him favor by his father again. He never learned his lesson where Gaveston was concerned and I’m surprised he lived as long as he did as a result.
Many thanks for your comment, extremely interesting. 20 year’s he was on the throne, amazing how he lasted so long. 👍🙏
I'm a history buff myself, and I've been studying the history of England during the middle ages and the rennisance. This info is awesome! Keep it up! New subscriber here! ❤
Glad you liked it, many thanks for your kind words 🙏👍
😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
😅😅😅😅 39:43 😊
It’s interesting that Robert the Bruce was “running amok” in lower Scotland. How can you “run amok” when taking back lands that belonged to you in the first place? England had no right to take any parts of Scotland EVER. I say that as a descendant of both sides.
I see the point you are making and completely agree with you, but England did invade, many times. They must have been awful times to live through. I used the phrase‘running amok’ simply because it was on English held territory in Scotland at that particular time. I am certainly not saying it was right for the English to have been there, just a historical fact that they were.
Great comment.
His father, Edward I was a powerful leader. His constant battles against Scotland and Ireland was fierce. Unfortunately his son , Edward 2nd was not of the same caliber. Did he have sexual relations with Piers Gaveston or was it propaganda to use against Edward? His reign was unstable and full of the nobles rebelling. He got a rough deal but his handling of political situations were disastrous. Isabella was shrewd and a most determined Queen. Edward should of given her deference and treat her better. She was revenge full and it's understandable.
Completely agree. I think Edward was a misogynist and a narcissist. Nothing Noble about him.
I think that when Gavenston wore the Queen’s dresses and jewelry publicly answers both the question of the King’s relationship and why Queen Isabella was furious with him. After Gavenston was murdered, the King switched to the DeSpencers.
@aliceputt3133 I didn't know that Pires Gaverston donned female clothes. It's never been remarked upon by historians or contemporary writers. I'm surprised. However, if true or not, I think Edward should of been more circumspect in his manner. It seems Gaverston enjoyed his elevation to favourite and became vain and arrogant and the nobles were incensed.
Except for the part where she tried to keep her son Edward III from ascending to the throne when he was of age. Instead, she plotted with her lover Robert Mortimer to put one of their children on the throne in Edward's stead. She was lucky to only be shut up in a convent for her crimes.
@@gayprepperz6862she probably thought any issue from Edward 2nd might end up like it's Father
Pretty decent overview. I think my only gripe is the long stretches of silence when there are written explanations onscreen. I don't watch the whole time because I put videos on to do other things, so I'll be looking away and suddenly everything goes silent.
That’s interesting, thinking about it, when I watch videos I sometimes do that so I will take that on board, many thanks for watching anyway 👍🙏
She certainly wasn't the sweet, timid, and innocent-like damsel that Mel Gibson made her out to be in Brave Heart, but that's what people get when they only get their history lessons from Hollywood.
Ha ha, I couldn’t have put it better myself. I watched a film on Mary Queen of Scots the other day and they managed to contrive a meeting between her and Elizabeth - why on earth do they do that?
@@historyslifestories373 DRAMA, and "artistic license".
@@gayprepperz6862 As Shakespeare kept on doing in all his historical plays 🙂
@@heliedecastanet1882 Yep!
She also was 9 years old and still lived in France when William Wallace was executed
It's telling that the "she wolf" was mocked by her husband and treated with scorn while his homosexual infatuations were elevated. The "she wolf" bore insults and mockery in silent humility until the moment came to take vengence for her husbands many insults
Yes, she replaced her husband and king with her son and ruled through him enriching herself in the process 👍
This is one of the better documentaries I've seen on the topic. However, a few important things are missing or glossed over in it.
1) Isabella did not hate Edward II.
There is plenty of evidence that she was very close with Edward II, even as he was simultaneously enamored with Gaveston. As you say, she got along well with Gaveston in spite of their little love triangle. They understood eachother and certainly there was true mutual affection between Isabella and Edward. The dynamics changed when Despenser came in between them and for the most part denied Isabella access to her husband. Isabella would hate Despenser with a passion for the rest of her life, but this hate did not extend to her husband. Even as Edward II was imprisoned at Berkeley Castle, she would write him affectionate letters, sending him gifts, food, small luxuries and asking about his health. There was no political reason for doing this, only love could explain this. She wanted to see him, but was denied these requests by Roger Mortimer, who had everything to lose if they would be reconciled.
Isabella, more than anyone else, cared about Edward II. She knew him better than anyone and understood his vices and virtues and accepted him for who he was, with all his flaws. It's very sad that their relationship is so deeply misrepresented still today.
2) Edward II was (most likely) not murdered.
The chroniclers who recorded these events were no more informed about what really happened than the average man on the street.
Many people who would have been very well informed about the true state of affairs were certain that he was alive well after he was rumoured to have died. There is some evidence that he was later att Corfe Castle, and from there moved on to Ireland and thence to the continent, finally ending up in a peaceful Italian convent. As crazy as this does sound it is the most likely scenario considering all the actual facts we are aware of. I won't get into it too deeply, but the Fieschi letter is of great significance, as is the fact the a man claiming to be the father of Edward III met with him in Koblenz, Germany years after. In those days, royal impersonators would regularly get executed, but this time... the man was allowed to live and was not persecuted in any way. He didn't even ask for anything, which is telling.
Why, then, would Edward II not have tried to regain the throne, had he remained alive?
Because of his personality. Kingship was forced upon him, and he had no interest in government. He enjoyed the company of lowborn people. He must have been painfully aware that his reign had been a disaster. He was pious and had always found the company of priests, prelates and monks very pleasant. In his teens, he faced criticism for staying much longer in their company than he would have needed to. He was always criticized for ignoring matters of state, always preferring to do hard work with his own hands.
Now he was finally at peace, enjoying a blissful existence in a scenic Italian convent in a mountainous setting. He was among like minded people, an equal to them, allowed to fill his days with physical labour and piety, activities which had always given him joy. Why would he have wanted to return to the hellish existence he endured as a king?
This is what I imagine he told his son in Germany, and was thus allowed by all to continue his peaceful existence. He was officially declared dead, but allowed to stay alive far away from England and its politics. It was a win-win situation for everyone.
Thanks very much @boogiesmall5181, a rather excellent and thought provoking comment, I do take your point on Isabella’s feelings for Edward, she was definitely fully supportive of her husband when Gaveston was alive, however, the arrival of the Despenser’s threw a huge spanner in the works. Edwards death may well be solely down to Mortimer, personally I would love to know the full in’s and out’s.
I am indeed aware of the rumours surrounding Edward’s survival and living out the rest of his life in Germany (I think???), but I chose on balance not to include it in the script - looking back I think this was a mistake and should have given it some time. If Edward did escape I would love to know who is in his tomb 👍. Thanks again for a really interesting comment 😉🙏👍
@@historyslifestories373 Thank you for your response!
I believe he became a hermit in Italy, as crazy as it sounds put that bluntly. It does make a lot of sense however, everything considered.
I'm no expert in the field, but I try to binge of books on medieval England. These are of course only theories, but the actual evidence we have seems to point to this conclusion and interpreting the letters and events any differently does have some flaws which makes this scenario by far the most likely at the end of the day.
If you're up to the task and feel like it, I would strongly recommend reading Kathryn Warners books on Edward II (the biggest authority there is on him) as well as Ian Mortimers. Once you've done that... make an Internet breaking video on their compelling discoveries. So far, all this is only available in written format, and I believe this would be extremely interesting for many people who can't find the time to go through all the written sources! 🤩
This is riveting stuff. It really is possible to feel you get to know who these people were, what made them tick, what drove them, what they feared, what caused them to react the way they did to events. These are more than hollow words. Human nature never changes.
Consider this task, at least 🙂
That beginning sound and echo, shows reverberation and great acoustics. What a neat place to enter.
Many thanks 😉🙏👍
This was so incredible! I can't believe I'm just discovering your channel now!
Looking forward to more content.
That’s great PinkLady, glad you liked it, please let me know if there is any event or person you would like me to cover? I am always after new ideas 👍🙏
Excellent video!
I'll be rewatching this for sure
Many thanks Ross, really appreciate that 👍🙏
Wonderful video! I recently subscribed to your channel. I would love a video on Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Hi @sisterhoney61, many thanks for your kind words, I have done a video on Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine obviously featured quite prominently, but I agree a video purely dedicated to her is definitely something to consider, thanks again 👍🙏
Great video! Very informative without being at all dry. Thanks, looking forward to more.
Many thanks, that’s much appreciated 👍🙏
What an excellent video! I’m glad that I just discovered this channel this morning. Edward II is exhibit A for the reason why hereditary monarchies are such a bad idea. Edwards I and III were excellent rulers (for their time), but Edward II was an utter disaster. Unfortunately, the people had no way of getting rid of him and replacing him with someone much more capable and competent until the end of his reign and, as a result, the entire country suffered. The idea that somehow one’s exalted bloodline is proof enough that they will be a just and equitable ruler or leader is absolute nonsense.
Many thanks Monica, glad you enjoyed it, completely agree with your thoughts on the problems with hereditary monarchies. It’s kind of strange that when you had what was thought to be a great monarch such as Henry V they were invariably succeeded by a bad one - Henry VI. 👍🙏
Well they did “get rid of him”, didn’t they?
The problem was that there was no mechanism for a *peaceful* replacement , or for a separation of powers. With those things, a hereditary monarchy is not a problem…. as the number of stable , politically free modern monarchies demonstrate.
I’d add that hereditary monarchy was a mechanism whereby war was avoided. Otherwise, the death of every monarch held a very high probability that civil war would ensue between different candidates.
The reality of the day was that the land was divided between powerful warlords. A King had to be more than “nice”, he had to be able to enforce the peace between those warlords, as well as protect the kingdom from foreign invaders.
Ironically, the Parliamentary powers and the increasing power of the lesser nobility, the gentry and the commons, were the results of weak Kings needing to compromise. The process by which the democratic institutions arose in England took centuries and much bloodshed. It’s a fascinating study in its own right.
We're supposed to pretend that Edward's homosexuality had nothing to do with the lack of respect that his medieval peers and subjects had for him? Being a sodomite was pretty much the worst thing one could have been. They hated him for it.
Would that be the reason they castrated Despenser,?
THere were other kings who were also homosexual, but because they were fair in their dealings and good rulers, no one really cared what they did in their bedchambers.
THe primary function of the king was to rule (and then to have an heir, of course), if he was competent at that, he could have had sex with goats. People wouldn't have minded.
THe church might have minded, but what could they do?
As for the castration of Despenser... it was purely Isabella's revenge - it was all her.
@@yani.ethere’s no mention of the castration in the contemporary chronicles. Seems to be a homophobic myth like “a red hot poker”
Very interesting, entertaining and looks professional. Looking forward to more history lessons! New subscriber here!
Many thanks for your kind words, good to have you on board 🙏👍
Enjoy watching and listening to these typw of history videos either when doing chores or walki g to work. Glad to have found another channel
Thanks Michelle, you’re very welcome 👍🙏
49:01 in my opinion king got his just due finally and isebbella done a remarkable job, she certainly gained the right. Hats off to Queen Isebbella ❤😅
Yes, you wouldn’t mess with her 😉👍
Excellent Documentary, Thank You!✨
Many thanks Lisa, glad you enjoyed it 👍🙏
“Unsavory encounter with a red hot poker” is a rather sanguine way of putting it….but yeah !
Yes, something that would make your eyes water 😀👍
@@historyslifestories373 well it was a sure cure for hemorrhoids….to say the least!😳
Brilliantly edited video and narration. 👍
Many thanks Gaza, much appreciated 😉🙏👍
Thank you for a great video! 👑
You’re very welcome Ann👍🙏
what a
happy accident
to tumble across
your channel..
😉😃
thoroughly enjoyed.!
looking forward
to delving into
more..
✌🏻🇦🇺🌏🤘🏻
That’s great, really glad you enjoyed it, much appreciated 🙏👍
Makes me wonder how things would have worked out if the homosexuality of these 2 had been accepted. One thing they hated most about Gaveston was that he was far stronger, a better fighter and tremendously more dominant in personality than all other men at court.
You’re absolutely right, also his arrogance certainly didn’t help 👍
@@historyslifestories373 It helped Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Trump. Arrogance must be only for the guy at the top, not second fiddle.
Just because men are close friends doesn't mean they are homosexual
Nothing would have changed. It was not the king's proclivities that was the problem.
THere were a lot of rulers who were gay but because they could rule, no one really minded what they did in their bedchambers. Edward II, however, was weak, incompetent and also let his favorites have too much control over everything.
If he were a good ruler, people wouldn't have minded if instead of Gaveston it was a sheep or a goat.
@@Lina-lq7jm "People wouldn't have minded". Which people? "The people" didn't matter at all, had no say. Only the other nobles counted and they saw Edward's main weakness as his homosexuality. James I was gay also, but he did a better job of hiding it. Richard II was more like Edward II and look what happened to him. Some say William Rufus was gay. He was murdered.
Any king caught in between Edward the 1st and Edward 3rd was gonna be a weak one when compared to those two …
Hi, Edward I was indeed a tough act to follow, often happened - Henry V was followed by Henry VI etc 👍
❤ Absolutely brilliant 👌 loved it, Soooo interested 😊 have subscribed 💕
Thank you so much Maria, much appreciated 👍🙏
Just watched this and loved it😍 looked on your other videos and was sooooo excited to see Henry 2nd 😆 watching it next
Great documentory, well thought out and well layed out. Appreciate what your doing for us, also good that you leave comments on as those that know throw in there twopenny worth which adds to the tapestry, rather peeps did'nt drop in "Fun Fact" though, Despenser-Spenser, guess i'd better go jump down that rabbit whole and find out....
Many thanks for your kind words, I wouldn’t go down that rabbit hole, you may never emerge 😂🙏👍
Wonderful, thank you
You’re very welcome 👍🙏
behind every
great man
there has to be
a great woman.!
😉😁
✌🏻🇦🇺🌏🤘🏻
Yes, a great woman indeed, but not one to be taken lightly 👍
OH, THAT BABY IS SO CUTE!! I couldn't pay attention to anything, after! That must be the narrator's kid; good for you if so, though I'm sure Ed III was just as precocious at that age!
"Yes, you're a cute, little bloodthirsty monarch, aren't you!?" 🥰🥰
Great show-well done!!
Hi Deborah, much appreciated 👍🙏
Hi Deborah, much appreciated 👍🙏
Great video again, keep them coming!👍
Ha ha, now I think I know you don’t I? Many thanks and looking forward to meeting up 🍺🍺🍺
Ha ha, now I think I know you don’t I? Many thanks and looking forward to meeting up 🍺🍺🍺
22 blows to sever the Earl's head from his body? What were they using, a pen knife?
I reckon a lump hammer 😂
Awesome video!
Thanks, that’s much appreciated 👍🙏
One should not forget that from 1302 till about 1312 the French King saw his power and influence heavily weakened after losing 1200 knights and his entire army being massacred at the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302 after picking a fight with the Flemish. So marrying off his daughter to the King of England was probably a way to stop the English from taking advantage of his weakened position and invading France.
PS : Well... we picked a fight with them really during the Brugse Metten in Bruges when we killed the entire French garisson but the end result is the same.
Not sure of the link between this two events, since the marriage took place in 1308, and since Philip IV re-imposed his authority over Flanders in 1304 in the battles of Zierikzee and Mons-en-Pévèle.
@@heliedecastanet1882 it was his lack of knights. He reinforced his authority with foot soldiers as the French nobility had been decimated during their fateful charge at Kortrijk. You don't "rebuild' so to speak 1200 knights in 6 years. Fighting the Flemish with foot soldiers was doable, they would have won in 1302 if the nobels hadn't insisted on charging. Fighting a British Knight led army however would have been a much different affair. He left Flanders semi autonomous and only wanted to collect taxes having seen that Flanders was the richest area of Europe if you let them go about bussines without interference.
@@Erulin68 The point is (and I do apologize because I have not been very clear) there is no record of any intention from Edward I of invading France, since the failure of his campaign and the defeat of his allies that led to the treaty of Montreuil-sur-Mer in 1299 and his marriage with Marguerite de France.
Where did you get the information that another invasion was planned ?
@@heliedecastanet1882 The fact the English send troops to aid the Flemish. Due to bad weather they were however unable to land their forces. We have the records in the town archives here in Bruges. It's part of our history lessons from a very early age as it's our history. Are we sure ? Of course not that's why I used the word 'probably' But the mere fact of the English sending troops over might point to them having plans in that direction.
@@Erulin68 I didn't know English sent troops in Flanders between 1299 and 1307. I didn't see it written anywhere. Thanks for the information then.
Have a good evening !
It is surmised that they left Caerphilly Castle to attempt to flee to Lundy then Ireland to raise an army but a lack of support from the Abbotts of Neath and Margam and the lords of Swansea coupled with horrendous storms that made seafaring impossible put a stop to their plan.
Edward II did not die from a red hot poker up his butt! Wish people would stop saying it.
That was the reason chroniclers came up with but that was decades after Edwards death, I did say that the poker story was fiction and that the most likely reason for his demise was that he was smothered. The poker story suited certain writers narrative at the time.
I agree! The internet has made people 100% more stupid, gullible and lazy. Please do not add to the collective lowering of global IQ. It is already in single digits.
A curse to his father's legacy and a boon to the Scots and French. Robert Bruce carried the war right back into England because of this man's incompetence, and knew from his informants that Edward and Piers were too close for comfort. Ah well...
Yes, the Bruce certainly had the upper hand over the English both politically and militarily.
An outstanding documentary, inspired
Many thanks Greg, much appreciated 👍🙏
The armour and clothing shown here dates from well over a century later. Full plate armour wasn't even a thing from around his lifespan. Hidden iron vertical plate strips under the surcoat had an appearance though, and knee and elbow plates were also quite common. Most of the clothing dates from the War of the Roses period in the 15th century. War of the Roses recreationists are much more popular than the earlier 13th and 14th centuries so it's somewhat understandable they get used for documentaries like this.
You are quite right, it is difficult to say the least to obtain accurate battle footage for the correct era, the footage I used was the closest I could find, where ever you look it is either plated or vikings.
So why comment about accuracy if it's understandable 🤔
To inform viewers, but not be in a rage hate about it. @@pamelasloan1664
love to see a vid of yours on Edward I 🙂
Many thanks, I will definitely take your suggestion on board 👍🙏
You’re very talented. I hope to see more videos.
Many thanks Revolver, it’s really appreciated 👍🙏
Edward may have been a girly man, but the wife was a manly girl, it seems..
Great video I enjoyed it 😊
Many thanks Michelle 👍🙏
I called my ex-wife my "intimate terrorist," but I get his point of a "wolf wife." Same thing.
'She-wolf' sounds like a royal pain in the neck of men who had poor masculine armour.
Ticked off Berkeley castle as important castles in my family past
Hi Mary, yes Berkeley Castle is magnificent. I really like castles that are still inhabited 👍🙏
@@historyslifestories373 It is amazing that same family have lived there nearly 900 years. I am almost jealous to them. Great video and greetings from Finland 🇫🇮💙.
Something else going on in this time period was King Philip persecuting the Knights Templar. King Edward 2 refused to allow this in his kingdom. I think later, but not at first and King Philip was a pretty serious monarch to stand up to.
Well done, tremendous overview of main events. I would enjoy your take on Simon de Montford, hero warrior or religious zealot?
Hi Carol, many thanks for that, and what a great suggestion, definitely one I will take on board. There are so many characters that are on the periphery of the monarchs that are in fact just as (and in some cases more) interesting 😊👍🙏
Wasn't there a horrible famine in 1315-1 7? That could not have helped things for Edward II
Yes, you are quite right, the famine stretched right across Northern Europe, maybe I should have mentioned it 👍
Interesting video. What is the sailing ship in the video. It appears to have two gun decks.
I used the footage of the ship from a stock site, I do try and use footage for the period but I missed the gun decks in this instance.
Constant commercials occasionally interrupted by the video.
My favourite English king!
Yes, I really enjoyed researching Edward II, fascinating character, I think Richard II would be good to do also 👍🙏
@@historyslifestories373I have watched the video twice and enjoyed it very much. Very well researched, presented and accurate. Edward II was not flawless, for sure, but being a fourth son he was not supposed to become king and, most importantly, was not cut out to rule England at that particular time, unfortunately. He also got very bad press! Richard II is my "second best" so yes, sir, a video on him would be great. Thanks for your great job!
I'm curious why this is your favourite King?
Mine is Richard the Third. I think he got a bum deal
Why do you choose one of the worst to be your favorite?
@SuperClappy1984 That is one thing NOONE can take from Richard III and is also why for a long while I was a Ricardian; he was always a fierce and brave warrior, and he was to his very end. He suffered his death with valor and bravery, all while having recently suffered the worse losses a man can suffer (his only son and child then his longtime love and wife.) It wasn't a needless fight like with some Scotish kings who needlessly died in battles they didn't need to fight, but a defense of his throne and kingdom. His loss doesn't make it any less impressive, because by all reports he fought to his last breath and was a hard man to kill. Regardless of my other thoughts on his reign, he has my respect for this particular part of it.
Wow...there's really no question that Edward II was a bottom, is there?
Is that where the saying (A hard neck comes from ) with the beheading of Arundel ?
I am not really sure where the saying was derived, in this case it would make perfect sense 😊
These historical events do indeed describe what would happened to the ruling class of the day…those who transgressed met a very gruesome end..the executions were brutal..no wonder the fear of knowing what their fate was would give rise to much anxiety.
Absolutely, in many cases it just wasn’t enough to simply put someone to death, making them suffer both mentally and physically was the order of the day 👍
200,000£ how much is that in today value I wonder?
Hmmmmm, a very good question, not as much as our current debt burden I bet 😀👍
Around 6 000 000 £, but the costs of life were very different, if you consider that the price for the rent of a nice house was £1/month. So, 200 000 is HUGE 🙂 It would more something like 200 000 000 £.
@@heliedecastanet1882 😲
Real subjects, versus fake videos that use filmdom’s stars to tell stories about ancient stories.
I hate that the writers here have chosen to call Isabella a 'she-wolf', even going so far as to use it for a click-bait title. The 'she-wolf' monicker was not one used in the lifetime; in fact, after several months being buried under piles of chronicles in a undergrad study, I emerged having found the earliest use of the term towards her being in Edmund Spenser's play about Edward II. After that, a flurry a seriously anti-feminist 17th and 18thh century scholars used the name as a shorthand for both Isabella of France and Margaret of Anjou. To continue to use the title is anti-feminist and sloppy history to boot. Do we really want to continue to promulgate such vilification?
Sorry I zoned out when you mentioned feminism 🥱
@@lorrainecasey749 No worries. You weren't missed.
@@Liutgard 😁
Calling her a she-wolf is pretty mild considering that she was an adulterous whore who killed a rightful king.
Edward might have been weak as a ruler, but he was rightful ruler. She, on the other hand, had no claim to the throne herself. And the fact that her son killed her lover the moment he was old enough, and banished her, proves that she wasn't in the right.
@@Lina-lq7jmIsabella and Mortimer’s romance is a 19th century invention, there’s no actual evidence that they were in romantic relationship.
Ah….. so the Braveheart political scenario was true!!
Ha ha, it would have been interesting if Gaveston was thrown out of a window 😀
The movie was complete fiction.
@@historyslifestories373Gaveston went out of the window as well as historical accuracy in that movie 😂
Poor Edward’s been maligned
History ❤
Me too 👍
“The overwhelming force they faced”. Ehh, would that be the Scottish army which they outnumbered 3:1?
Sorry too many adverts
Otherwise, excellent.
Many thanks 🙏👍
there is only one track of music, to accompany the life of queen isabella the she wolf,
its bad romance by lady gaga..
edward had a complicated life, and was certainly bisex..
Æthelred the Unready, the poorly adivsed and totally incomptent king of the english,
probably was the very first to be deposed in 1013, but was later restored briefly...
as for edward II, his tragic love life and ambitious- greedy favourites... eventually led to his downfall...
however it is not entirely a english only story..., or even of events takin place in england...
scotland was united under king robert I the bruce... and the defeat of england, must have come as almighty shock...,
this went much of the way in damaging his repuation across europe... and prestige of BRUCE DYNASTY , over that of the plantagenets...
in wales the norman marcher lord...
ROGER MORTIMER, 1st earl of march, was a grandson to LLEWELLYN THE GREAT, king of gwynedd and prince of the welsh..., he must have viewed himself as equal to any other feudal baron, and a grandson of a prince...,
later he was the favourite and lover of queen isabella..., they had simmilar motives & passions..., in detesting both the king & the despencers...., briefly they would co rule as regents for edward III..
earlier the DE CLARES, were major landowners and nobility closely connected to the crown....,
EDWARD I nieces and their lands were then carved up by the hated and ambitious DESPENCERS.....
the welsh noble.. LLEWELLYN BREN in 1316 was a former steward to the estates of the DE CLARES...
his REBELLION... & later savage execution, almost placed much of wales into second open rebellion against the despencers & the king...,
orginally *edward was known as edward of caernarvon castle*, he may have believed that wales or the welsh marches was a safe place to be , or on the lands of his favourite & lover....
later the king was captured in llantrisant castle... and then eventually taken to berkley castle...
the savage tale or propaganda, maybe a MORITMER DYNASTY invention, as both the church, queen benefited from depostition..
@ graham loveluck edwards... EDWARD II and his norman -welsh marcher favourites estates, romance & rebellion..
So gaverston was the so called mistress of the king 👑
😂
In the Middle Ages it was a deadly sin to be gay
He could obviously do the thing with Isabella as there would have been no heirs
Who thought that it was ok for Isabella to be buried with Edward 😮???
He got clapped in the face with a metal gauntlet after Longshanks threw his boy toy out the window.
THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
Please read actual history instead of believing movies.
Next, yoube telling us about how Elizabeth I and Mary of Scots met in real life.
Grrr. The gullible acceptance of fictitious content as historical fact drives me nuts. The real history is far more interesting.
@@anniethemese1215 AIM SMALL MISS SMALL
Was Edward the 3rd last PLANTAGENEST?
Richard III was the last Plantagenet king (and a Yorkist), hope that helps 😉👍
Edward II certainly wasnt so dark skinned.
Edward 2nd. - just like Charles 3rd I'd say.